Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator presents an unusually demanding workload, and the combination of the Intel Core i5-13400F and the AMD Radeon RX 580 produces results that are heavily skewed by the graphics card's age. The measured frame rates show a system that is functional at lower resolutions and settings but struggles to maintain playable speeds at higher presets. The data indicates a clear performance ceiling defined by the GPU, while the CPU provides a stable foundation that rarely becomes the primary constraint.

FAQ

Q: What is the overall performance rank of this CPU and GPU pairing in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The combo ranks 1655 out of 1795 tested combinations, placing it in the lower percentile of systems. This indicates that the pairing is far from optimal for this specific simulation title, which is known for its heavy resource demands.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its closest rivals in general benchmark scores?

A: The Intel Core i5-13400F has an average benchmark score of 25236. This is effectively tied with the Intel Core i7-13620H, which scores 25201 and is only 0.1% ahead. It is also within a half-percent of the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D, which scores 25365 and is 0.5% faster.

Q: What is the difference in raw compute performance between the CPU and GPU?

A: The CPU's average benchmark score is 25236, while the GPU's average benchmark score is 13559. The CPU holds a significant lead in these aggregated benchmarks, which often translates to fewer CPU-side bottlenecks in simulation-heavy games like this one.

Q: What is the best average frame rate achieved by this system?

A: The highest average frame rate recorded is 51.7 FPS, which occurs at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings. This is the only setting that approaches the 60 FPS target, while all other configurations produce lower averages.

Q: How much of a performance drop occurs when moving from 1080p to 4K at Ultra settings?

A: The average frame rate falls from 30.6 FPS at 1920x1080 Ultra to 20 FPS at 3840x2160 Ultra. This represents a reduction of about 34.6% in average frame rate, demonstrating that the GPU is the limiting factor as pixel count increases.

Q: Is the CPU's single-thread performance or multi-thread performance more relevant for this game?

A: The data shows the CPU has a strong multi-thread score of 21279 in Cinebench R23, but its single-thread score of 3004 is also robust. For a flight simulator, the per-core performance is often critical, and the 3DMark single-thread score of 960 suggests the processor is capable, but the measured frame rates indicate the GPU holds the system back before the CPU becomes a factor.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 580 is a product of the Polaris architecture, manufactured on a 14nm process. It features 2304 shading units, 144 texture mapping units, and 32 raster operation pipelines. Its memory subsystem consists of 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s. The core clock operates at a base of 1257 MHz and boosts up to 1340 MHz, while the memory runs at 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective). These specifications place the GPU in the 53rd percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 13559.

In the context of Microsoft Flight Simulator, the GPU's role is to render the vast and detailed scenery, from terrain mesh to aircraft models. The benchmark results show that the RX 580 is the primary bottleneck in this system. At 1920x1080 Low, the system achieves 51.7 FPS, but increasing the settings to High drops the average to 31.5 FPS. This 39% performance penalty highlights the GPU's struggle with the game's complex shaders and draw calls. The situation worsens at higher resolutions; at 3840x2160, even Low settings only produce 33.5 FPS, and High settings fall to 17.6 FPS. The data clearly indicates that the RX 580's compute capabilities are insufficient for the demands of this simulation at higher detail levels.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-13400F is a 10-core, 16-thread processor based on the Raptor Lake architecture. It has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. The cache hierarchy includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and a shared 20 MB of L3 cache. This processor supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory and connects via PCIe Gen 5. Its benchmark scores are solid, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 21279 and a single-core score of 3004. It sits in the 82nd percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 25236.

Given that the CPU's average score is significantly higher than the GPU's, the processor is not the limiting factor in these test results. The near-identical performance to rivals like the Intel Core i7-13620H, which is only 0.1% faster, and the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D, which is 0.5% faster, indicates that the 13400F provides a consistent and capable foundation. In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU handles the simulation logic, physics, and AI traffic. The measured frame rates across all settings and resolutions show that the GPU exhausts its capability before the CPU's 16 threads or 4.6 GHz boost clock become a constraint. The processor's multi-threaded performance is more than adequate for the game's background tasks, while its single-thread speed is sufficient to feed the GPU.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo of the Intel Core i5-13400F and AMD Radeon RX 580 ranks 1655 out of 1795 tested combinations in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places the system in the bottom portion of the performance chart, indicating that most other CPU and GPU pairings deliver higher frame rates. The ranking reflects the significant imbalance between the components; the CPU performs in the 82nd percentile among all processors, while the GPU only achieves the 53rd percentile among all graphics cards.

This discrepancy suggests that the pairing is held back entirely by the GPU. The CPU is a strong performer, as evidenced by its benchmark score of 25236, which is comparable to the fastest mobile processors. However, the GPU's score of 13559 is only marginally better than legacy cards like the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570, which is 0% different in score. In a game as visually intensive as Microsoft Flight Simulator, the GPU's lower standing directly translates to the poor overall combo rank. The measured FPS data supports this, as the system never reaches an average of 60 FPS in any configuration, and the performance degrades predictably as resolution and settings increase.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured frame rates provide a clear picture of the system's capabilities across different resolutions and settings. At 1920x1080, the system achieves its best results. With Low settings, the average frame rate is 51.7 FPS. Moving to Medium settings yields an average of 43.5 FPS, a reduction of 15.9%. High settings produce 31.5 FPS, and Ultra settings drop to 30.6 FPS. The gap between Medium and High is substantial, suggesting a significant jump in GPU workload.

At 2560x1440, the performance scales down further. Low settings average 42.4 FPS, which is still playable. Medium settings drop to 33.2 FPS, while High settings average 27.4 FPS. Ultra settings at this resolution fall to 22.9 FPS, which is approaching the edge of playability. The transition from 1080p to 1440p at Low settings results in a 21.9% performance loss, illustrating the GPU's limited memory bandwidth and compute power.

At 3840x2160, the system is largely overwhelmed. Low settings are the only option that approaches a reasonable experience, with an average of 33.5 FPS. Medium settings drop to 24.7 FPS, and High settings fall to 17.6 FPS. Ultra settings at 4K produce an average of 20 FPS, which is not a playable experience for a flight simulator that requires precise control. The data shows that the RX 580 is only suitable for 1080p gaming in this title, and even then, only at lower presets.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the best experience for this combo is achieved at 1920x1080 resolution. The Low settings preset, which averages 51.7 FPS, is the only configuration that comes close to a smooth 60 FPS experience. This should be considered the baseline for a responsive simulation. However, the Medium preset, averaging 43.5 FPS, may offer a better balance between visual fidelity and performance for users who can tolerate a slightly lower frame rate for improved scenery detail.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset averages 42.4 FPS, which is the most viable option at this resolution. The Medium preset at 33.2 FPS is borderline, and any higher settings will result in a stuttering experience. At 3840x2160, the Low preset is the only one that can be considered, with an average of 33.5 FPS, but it still falls short of ideal smoothness. The data suggests that users should prioritize the 1920x1080 resolution with either Low or Medium settings to get the most playable experience from this hardware combination. The High and Ultra presets offer marginal visual gains at the cost of significant frame rate drops, making them less suitable for active gameplay.